The character of the house should, of course, prevail in all such buildings as are very conspicuous, or in any degree intended as ornaments* to the general scenery; such as lodges, pavilions, temples, belvederes, and the like. Yet, in adapting the Gothic style to buildings of small extent, there may be some reasonable objection: the fastidiousness even of good taste will, perhaps, observe, that we always see vast piles of buildings in ancient Gothic remains, and that it is a modern, or false Gothic only, which can be adapted to so small a building as a keeper's lodge, a reposoir, or a pavilion. There may be some force in this objection, but there is always so much picturesque effect in the small fragments of those great piles, that, without representing them as ruins, it is surely allowable to copy them for the purposes of ornament: and, with respect to the mixture of different styles, in Gothic edifices, I think there is no incongruity, provided the same character of perpendicular architecture be studiously retained; because there is hardly a cathedral in England in which such mixture may not be observed: and while the antiquary only can discover the Saxon and Norman styles from the Gothic of later date, the eye of taste will never be offended, except by the occasional introduction of some Grecian or Roman ornaments.
*[In consequence of the general observation, respecting the prevalence of perpendicular lines in the Gothic, at plate VI. [our fig. 15], is introduced a design of a gate, which is everywhere used at Welbeck, but would be utterly incongruous to Grecian architecture.]
